samuel-bell94
Joined Feb 2011
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews8
samuel-bell94's rating
When people think of the great men of the 21st century there is a list of names that everyone comes to, such as Barack Obama, Stephen Hawking and Steve Jobs. Businessmen, politicians and public figures alike. One name often missed, wrongfully so, is Fred Rogers. Won't you be my neighbour? Aims to correct this mistake by showcasing the man and legend in all his glory. At just over 90 minutes, the movie has its work cut out for it trying to explain the entire life of such an influential man, especially to audiences outside of America who likely haven't seen his work or heard of him before. While it may not be comprehensive in its coverage, or particularly nuanced in its story telling, won't you be my neighbour? Is an honest primer to a man who dedicated his life to kindness and love.
For those who have yet to encounter anything the man ever made, Fred Rogers was a TV frontrunner. The face and mind behind the juggernaut, 31 season, 912 episode long children's educational program that was Mister Rogers' Neighbourhood. From 1968 to 2001, the ordained priest and uncanonised saint spoke directly to the children of the world, teaching them about love and empathy as only he could. Never afraid to cover the harder topics, Fred Rogers often devoted entire episodes, if not series of episodes covering the subjects often avoided by most children's entertainment. Nothing was taboo, death, divorce, loss and pain, all the things that children will eventually deal with. The documentary shows how he took each issue, reframed them into a child's perspective and then patiently walked his audience through each of them.
A skilled producer, musician, puppeteer and priest, Fred rogers devoted his life to improving the lives of children around the world. His core message, repeated in every episode is as simple as it is poignant, you deserve to be loved. It was this message of unconditional love and acceptance that defined his life and in turn this film. Won't you be my neighbour avoids the trap of most bio pics of exaggerating their subject to make them either a perfect being or a demon incarnate. It also side steps the common failings of many documentaries, blowing events out of proportion and attempting to find people with as drastically opposed views on the issue as possible. Instead it succeeds in stunning fashion, portraying the life of man, as it happened, without fear nor favour. Fed Rogers was not a perfect man and the film does not pretend he was, there was controversy around him and his crew, he had his own insecurities and doubts that plagued him. Those reminders of humanity are what make both man and film so great though.
In much the same style as the titular entertainer, won't you be my neighbour? Throws itself into its circumstances. It's a low budget, low production value work of art. It doesn't rely on celebrities or star power, there are no scenes of people sobbing over his death or giving standing ovations during his life, though both happened on mass. It seeks to tell the truth of the man and lets you decide what you think about him all by yourself. It doesn't need to trick you into caring, because the fact of the matter is that if by some unholy miracle you leave this movie unmoved by the pure love Fred Rogers had for the world, it doesn't matter, he would have loved you anyway. All this movie really seeks to do is ask its audience a simple question, you don't even really need to watch the movie to hear it (though I highly recommend you do), all you need is the title. As a record of the life and death of one the kindest men to ever live, all this film wants to know is, Won't you be my neighbour?
For those who have yet to encounter anything the man ever made, Fred Rogers was a TV frontrunner. The face and mind behind the juggernaut, 31 season, 912 episode long children's educational program that was Mister Rogers' Neighbourhood. From 1968 to 2001, the ordained priest and uncanonised saint spoke directly to the children of the world, teaching them about love and empathy as only he could. Never afraid to cover the harder topics, Fred Rogers often devoted entire episodes, if not series of episodes covering the subjects often avoided by most children's entertainment. Nothing was taboo, death, divorce, loss and pain, all the things that children will eventually deal with. The documentary shows how he took each issue, reframed them into a child's perspective and then patiently walked his audience through each of them.
A skilled producer, musician, puppeteer and priest, Fred rogers devoted his life to improving the lives of children around the world. His core message, repeated in every episode is as simple as it is poignant, you deserve to be loved. It was this message of unconditional love and acceptance that defined his life and in turn this film. Won't you be my neighbour avoids the trap of most bio pics of exaggerating their subject to make them either a perfect being or a demon incarnate. It also side steps the common failings of many documentaries, blowing events out of proportion and attempting to find people with as drastically opposed views on the issue as possible. Instead it succeeds in stunning fashion, portraying the life of man, as it happened, without fear nor favour. Fed Rogers was not a perfect man and the film does not pretend he was, there was controversy around him and his crew, he had his own insecurities and doubts that plagued him. Those reminders of humanity are what make both man and film so great though.
In much the same style as the titular entertainer, won't you be my neighbour? Throws itself into its circumstances. It's a low budget, low production value work of art. It doesn't rely on celebrities or star power, there are no scenes of people sobbing over his death or giving standing ovations during his life, though both happened on mass. It seeks to tell the truth of the man and lets you decide what you think about him all by yourself. It doesn't need to trick you into caring, because the fact of the matter is that if by some unholy miracle you leave this movie unmoved by the pure love Fred Rogers had for the world, it doesn't matter, he would have loved you anyway. All this movie really seeks to do is ask its audience a simple question, you don't even really need to watch the movie to hear it (though I highly recommend you do), all you need is the title. As a record of the life and death of one the kindest men to ever live, all this film wants to know is, Won't you be my neighbour?
There have been many brilliant horror movies in recent years, from IT to Get out and even Lights out made an acceptable showing; the Spierig brothers new film Winchester, will not be counted among them. A dry and dull affair, with all the tension of a wet noodle and the emotional impact of kindergarten musical. Relying entirely on outdated and overused film technics, hoping to catch viewers off guard as they slip in out of consciousness trying make it through its bloated and utterly predictable script. Winchester is a paint by numbers film emphasises all the wrong aspects and contains such little respect for its viewers it seems to actively go out of its way to insult them every step of the way.
The film claims to be "Based on true events" in much the same way that the vomit I had to swallow watching this film was based on the meal I once ate. It tells the story of a rich widower and heir to the Winchester gun company as she attempts to battle the spirits of all those killed by her company's guns through the use of nonsensical architecture and a belief in the divinity of the number 13. Told through the eyes of a painfully foreshadowed phycologist as he attempts to diagnose the aging widow and keep his mind intact through this unrelenting beat down of a film.
The films main stars Helen Mirren and Jason Clarke are both so obviously waiting for their pay check it's astounding that they weren't caught on camera checking their bank accounts. Both actors have proven themselves to be talented and capable of greatness, which just makes watching them phone it in with such apathetic performances you almost feel bad for them having to waste their time so very uncomfortable. The supporting cast range from forgettably mediocre to downright cringeworthy. Mirren and Clarke combined may be enough to carry this film, but it's a heavy burden and without motivation, they don't carry it far.
They aren't helped by the simplistic script and cookie cutter plot of course. With characters being forced to repeat and explain every single detail of the plot to such a minute scale that even the most unobservant viewers feel bludgeoned by the film and it's clearly non existent expectations of its audience. Not that the plot is complicated, philosophical or otherwise difficult to completely understand. The film seems to have a secret agenda, aiming to hit as many horror clichés as possible without being noticed and fails terribly.
It comes down to writer laziness more than anything, and no where is this more apparent than in its supposed "horror" elements. Relying exclusively on jump scares the film is about as nail biting as a double amputee. For all the dark pallet choices, dramatic camera angles and laughable attempts at foreshadowing, the film contains absolutely no tension whatsoever. The film is so predictable that a mere five minutes in, the audience had already begun audibly counting down the seconds until the next jump scare arrived. It's attempts at phycological drama are half assed and lead nowhere, much like the dramatic family angle that was almost built into a solid arc only to completely neglect the payoff at the finale. It's attempts at romance were so unreservedly noxious that it raises the question of whether the directors understand basic human emotions.
A question made further prominent when you consider that aside from writing and directing this abomination they were also responsible for the music. A monotonous, mind-numbingly soporific murmur that pervades the film. While not as terrible as the other aspects of the movie, the constant hum of tortured violins and protracted pianos wears thin very early on and works to further distance the audience from the atmosphere that the film makers seem so desperate to create.
If the film does have a saving grace however it is Ben Nott and his cinematography work. While this film may be doomed to the dumpster fires of history, it will be in no way because of how it looked. The lighting is appropriate to the scenes, the colour pallets are fitting and effective, and camera does the very best it can to portray the emotions and drama that the rest of the film lacks the power to present. Winchester is doomed to become a black spot on the resumes of nearly everyone responsible for this films creation, however anyone who has the misfortune to watch this feature will agree that Mr Nott deserves to hold his head high.
In summary, Winchester is a beautiful train wreck, a ten-a-penny mediocre mess of writing that somehow obtained enough of a budget to lure in a couple of decent actors and a good cinematographer. Is it scary? Most certainly not. Is it enjoyable? Only if you really like seeing handlebar moustaches. Is it worth paying the price of admission? If I still have to answer that question, then who knows, for you, maybe.
The film claims to be "Based on true events" in much the same way that the vomit I had to swallow watching this film was based on the meal I once ate. It tells the story of a rich widower and heir to the Winchester gun company as she attempts to battle the spirits of all those killed by her company's guns through the use of nonsensical architecture and a belief in the divinity of the number 13. Told through the eyes of a painfully foreshadowed phycologist as he attempts to diagnose the aging widow and keep his mind intact through this unrelenting beat down of a film.
The films main stars Helen Mirren and Jason Clarke are both so obviously waiting for their pay check it's astounding that they weren't caught on camera checking their bank accounts. Both actors have proven themselves to be talented and capable of greatness, which just makes watching them phone it in with such apathetic performances you almost feel bad for them having to waste their time so very uncomfortable. The supporting cast range from forgettably mediocre to downright cringeworthy. Mirren and Clarke combined may be enough to carry this film, but it's a heavy burden and without motivation, they don't carry it far.
They aren't helped by the simplistic script and cookie cutter plot of course. With characters being forced to repeat and explain every single detail of the plot to such a minute scale that even the most unobservant viewers feel bludgeoned by the film and it's clearly non existent expectations of its audience. Not that the plot is complicated, philosophical or otherwise difficult to completely understand. The film seems to have a secret agenda, aiming to hit as many horror clichés as possible without being noticed and fails terribly.
It comes down to writer laziness more than anything, and no where is this more apparent than in its supposed "horror" elements. Relying exclusively on jump scares the film is about as nail biting as a double amputee. For all the dark pallet choices, dramatic camera angles and laughable attempts at foreshadowing, the film contains absolutely no tension whatsoever. The film is so predictable that a mere five minutes in, the audience had already begun audibly counting down the seconds until the next jump scare arrived. It's attempts at phycological drama are half assed and lead nowhere, much like the dramatic family angle that was almost built into a solid arc only to completely neglect the payoff at the finale. It's attempts at romance were so unreservedly noxious that it raises the question of whether the directors understand basic human emotions.
A question made further prominent when you consider that aside from writing and directing this abomination they were also responsible for the music. A monotonous, mind-numbingly soporific murmur that pervades the film. While not as terrible as the other aspects of the movie, the constant hum of tortured violins and protracted pianos wears thin very early on and works to further distance the audience from the atmosphere that the film makers seem so desperate to create.
If the film does have a saving grace however it is Ben Nott and his cinematography work. While this film may be doomed to the dumpster fires of history, it will be in no way because of how it looked. The lighting is appropriate to the scenes, the colour pallets are fitting and effective, and camera does the very best it can to portray the emotions and drama that the rest of the film lacks the power to present. Winchester is doomed to become a black spot on the resumes of nearly everyone responsible for this films creation, however anyone who has the misfortune to watch this feature will agree that Mr Nott deserves to hold his head high.
In summary, Winchester is a beautiful train wreck, a ten-a-penny mediocre mess of writing that somehow obtained enough of a budget to lure in a couple of decent actors and a good cinematographer. Is it scary? Most certainly not. Is it enjoyable? Only if you really like seeing handlebar moustaches. Is it worth paying the price of admission? If I still have to answer that question, then who knows, for you, maybe.
There are many ways to judge a film. Too many criteria to list and far too many to take into account when deconstructing a movie. After all, A film with dreadful acting may possess the year's best soundtrack or cinematography. This is what makes critiquing art such a subjective and strenuous task most of the time. Then there are the rare cases, such as The school. The school is one of the easiest films to review in existence, as it is unredeemable, unequivocally and undeniably bad. On every level, with every metric commonly used, this film is a failure.
Starting with the most obvious metric used, the acting can be described as wooden at best and bordering on sociopathic more honestly. With the single exception of Will McDonald, the film's antagonist who appears to have realized that his co-stars are all overdosing on Botox and has decided to counterbalance them all singlehandedly. He gets credit for trying and for being the most entertaining character in the movie, but it's not nearly enough to save him, or anyone else. Granted, this film does use primarily child actors and as such, it would be wrong to expect the same level of emoting as their adult counterparts. That doesn't change the fact that I shouldn't have to piece together to dialogue and guess at what emotion the characters are meant to be feeling at any time, based on context.
Many a film has survived terrible acting and used cinematography or special effects to carry the film. The school does not do that. What it does do, is use an entire Bunnings worth of LED's in every single scene regardless of how dark the characters claim/pretend it is; as well as seemingly steal all the horror props from a local middle schools Halloween stage performance. If this film were released in black and white during the initial Universal monsters' craze, it would still have coped flack for its character design and set pieces. Though admittedly, the Windows movie maker effects would probably have received much higher praise.
Mockumentaries have shown us that ugly visuals and bad casting isn't enough to sink a film with a good enough plot or message. This is where the school truly showcases just how abysmal a film it is, however. With a plot so unnecessarily convoluted and a theme so needlessly overbearing that the film seems determined to ensure that even the dullest of viewers don't miss out of how smart it thinks it is. Made even worse by the litany of plot holes so grotesquely large and obvious you could use the script to sift boulders if you were so inclined.
Most badly made movies have a saving grace, one aspect of the film good enough to act as a silver lining to redeem the other parts. The school has no such lining, it isn't an interesting look at cinema failure, it isn't even so bad it's good. It is just bad. If you are truly bored out of your mind and there is literally nothing else to do but watch this movie, I recommend having a nap and waiting for things to get better. I wouldn't even recommend this film to my enemies as it would then let them know it exists and opens up the possibility of my having to watch this again someday. That is not a risk I am willing to take.
Tl;dr Do not watch this movie, under any circumstances, unless your life is somehow on the line.
Starting with the most obvious metric used, the acting can be described as wooden at best and bordering on sociopathic more honestly. With the single exception of Will McDonald, the film's antagonist who appears to have realized that his co-stars are all overdosing on Botox and has decided to counterbalance them all singlehandedly. He gets credit for trying and for being the most entertaining character in the movie, but it's not nearly enough to save him, or anyone else. Granted, this film does use primarily child actors and as such, it would be wrong to expect the same level of emoting as their adult counterparts. That doesn't change the fact that I shouldn't have to piece together to dialogue and guess at what emotion the characters are meant to be feeling at any time, based on context.
Many a film has survived terrible acting and used cinematography or special effects to carry the film. The school does not do that. What it does do, is use an entire Bunnings worth of LED's in every single scene regardless of how dark the characters claim/pretend it is; as well as seemingly steal all the horror props from a local middle schools Halloween stage performance. If this film were released in black and white during the initial Universal monsters' craze, it would still have coped flack for its character design and set pieces. Though admittedly, the Windows movie maker effects would probably have received much higher praise.
Mockumentaries have shown us that ugly visuals and bad casting isn't enough to sink a film with a good enough plot or message. This is where the school truly showcases just how abysmal a film it is, however. With a plot so unnecessarily convoluted and a theme so needlessly overbearing that the film seems determined to ensure that even the dullest of viewers don't miss out of how smart it thinks it is. Made even worse by the litany of plot holes so grotesquely large and obvious you could use the script to sift boulders if you were so inclined.
Most badly made movies have a saving grace, one aspect of the film good enough to act as a silver lining to redeem the other parts. The school has no such lining, it isn't an interesting look at cinema failure, it isn't even so bad it's good. It is just bad. If you are truly bored out of your mind and there is literally nothing else to do but watch this movie, I recommend having a nap and waiting for things to get better. I wouldn't even recommend this film to my enemies as it would then let them know it exists and opens up the possibility of my having to watch this again someday. That is not a risk I am willing to take.
Tl;dr Do not watch this movie, under any circumstances, unless your life is somehow on the line.